In addition, organizations of suicidal intent will not prosper for very long in a international world full of self-reliant protection. Mutually-assured destruction will occur in almost every instance leaving only for the inevitable destruction of any perpetrators cause. Suicidal entities in any case will find always themselves extinct.

So eventually al Qaida would run out of volunteers to take nuclear weapon on "martyrdom operations" sooner or later. At the moment the seem to be able to organise at least 1 a week. So in 1 year, with 52 nukes, that would be 52 American cities levelled.

Isn't freedom wonderful for the former inhabitants of those metropolises?

BTW, I grew up in Ireland when people bombed shops and pubs for fun and for tit-for-tat. I think you woefully underestimate the cruelty that fanatics will inflict on helpless victims.

Al Qaida only exists in the first place because other forces aggress against and restrict their culture's affairs. Maybe if America and other European nations weren't so violent you wouldn't be having your fellow civilians bombed.

In conclusion, Al Qaidia isn't irrationally suicidal. They have desires that are not being met.

Our positions on food safety are clear; I believe that society has a duty to intervene before food is sold to make sure its safe and you believe the victim's estate should have a right to sue for poisoning damages after the sale has taken place. If you have changed to agreeing that intervention before the sale takes place is OK, say so. Otherwise we are done. What else is there to say?

I believe you have no right to intervene betwixt me and my clientele unless you know for a certainty, or you have reasonable cause to believe I'm about to bring harm. If you think that there is such a threat: first, inform the potential victim, second, get a search warrant, third, bring charges if any are worthy, and finally prosecute if you think the issue is grave enough. Until then, stay out of my kitchen and my life.

[quoteIts not difficult to make a nuclear bomb at all. The designs are freely available on the web and its the difficulty of getting the radioactive material that prevents proliferation. If there were no legal restrictions, Osama bin Ladin could have bought one all those years ago and not messed about hijacking planes.

I asked you a simply question and I think you know your answer but want to avoid saying it. Please, do you believe that restriction on access to nuclear weapons is acceptable?

A bomb isn't a bomb without the explosive materials. It's like an automobile without the gas. Sheesh. I'll never give a carte blanche answer unless the question is an obvious one. Using, or threatening use of nuclear weapons is not a simple question.

So do you believe that restrictions on access to the explosive material needed to make a nuclear bomb are OK?

I don't because it only creates a monopoly on determined outlaws and superpowers to create explosive weapons. Restrictions only harm the weak and prevent them from protecting themselves.

OK you believe suicide bombers should have a right to buy nukes. Lets not talk about it any more. You position is clear and there's no real point in asking you to consider the impact on potential vcitoms as the bomber's human rights are way more important.

In my ideal world, the amount of victims and potential victims would be much lower by the fact that their suicidal cause wouldn't have much merit, considering their would be little meddling in their affairs in the first place.

If your goal is just to challenge my integrity, I find your debate etiquette highly lacking.

What you advocate, Hawker, is a monopoly on the regulation of food by a government. All we advocate is a decentralized system and allow food regulation to occur voluntarily through various methods on a consumer and merchant level. You have yet to provide a point against the proposition that businesses would use means to insure its food is of greater and safer quality against its competitors. You have yet to disprove that consumer desire would lead to the enaction of private food regulators much like Consumer Reports and other reviews agencies.

None of us have been against regulation and admonishment of food. Again, we prefer many competing organizations that have incentive to be the BEST service. Not just one that exists on a honor system of that it will prosper just because.

Immanuel Go - what you are saying is that we both want the same thing. My question is this; do you believe society should have the power to intervene BEFORE bad food is sold or do we have to wait until AFTER the sale and have the victim's estate able to sue the food seller?

I believe people should be able to buy whatever food they desire no matter the level of the supply-chain it is inspected. The fact is general consumer desire will dictate that stores have safe food and that it will be inspected beforehand by voluntary consent.

In other cases, I don't believe people should be "protected" from their own decisions. For instance, if one chooses to drink raw milk while being at higher-risk of bacterial contamination, it is ones right to submit to said risk.

Thats fine. You are OK with kids dying cos Mommy wasn't careful enough to buy eggs that are free of salmonella infection. The really important issue for you is the human right of the food seller is not interfered with.

Our positions on food safety are clear; I believe that society has a duty to intervene before food is sold to make sure its safe and you believe the victim's estate should have a right to sue for poisoning damages after the sale has taken place. If you have changed to agreeing that intervention before the sale takes place is OK, say so. Otherwise we are done. What else is there to say?

I believe you have no right to intervene betwixt me and my clientele unless you know for a certainty, or you have reasonable cause to believe I'm about to bring harm. If you think that there is such a threat: first, inform the potential victim, second, get a search warrant, third, bring charges if any are worthy, and finally prosecute if you think the issue is grave enough. Until then, stay out of my kitchen and my life.

[quoteIts not difficult to make a nuclear bomb at all. The designs are freely available on the web and its the difficulty of getting the radioactive material that prevents proliferation. If there were no legal restrictions, Osama bin Ladin could have bought one all those years ago and not messed about hijacking planes.

I asked you a simply question and I think you know your answer but want to avoid saying it. Please, do you believe that restriction on access to nuclear weapons is acceptable?

A bomb isn't a bomb without the explosive materials. It's like an automobile without the gas. Sheesh. I'll never give a carte blanche answer unless the question is an obvious one. Using, or threatening use of nuclear weapons is not a simple question.

So do you believe that restrictions on access to the explosive material needed to make a nuclear bomb are OK?

I don't because it only creates a monopoly on determined outlaws and superpowers to create explosive weapons. Restrictions only harm the weak and prevent them from protecting themselves.

OK you believe suicide bombers should have a right to buy nukes. Lets not talk about it any more. You position is clear and there's no real point in asking you to consider the impact on potential vcitoms as the bomber's human rights are way more important.

In my ideal world, the amount of victims and potential victims would be much lower by the fact that their suicidal cause wouldn't have much merit, considering their would be little meddling in their affairs in the first place.

You really have no idea what bad people are like. In a way, I envy you.

What you advocate, Hawker, is a monopoly on the regulation of food by a government. All we advocate is a decentralized system and allow food regulation to occur voluntarily through various methods on a consumer and merchant level. You have yet to provide a point against the proposition that businesses would use means to insure its food is of greater and safer quality against its competitors. You have yet to disprove that consumer desire would lead to the enaction of private food regulators much like Consumer Reports and other reviews agencies.

None of us have been against regulation and admonishment of food. Again, we prefer many competing organizations that have incentive to be the BEST service. Not just one that exists on a honor system of that it will prosper just because.

Immanuel Go - what you are saying is that we both want the same thing. My question is this; do you believe society should have the power to intervene BEFORE bad food is sold or do we have to wait until AFTER the sale and have the victim's estate able to sue the food seller?

I believe people should be able to buy whatever food they desire no matter the level of the supply-chain it is inspected. The fact is general consumer desire will dictate that stores have safe food and that it will be inspected beforehand by voluntary consent.

In other cases, I don't believe people should be "protected" from their own decisions. For instance, if one chooses to drink raw milk while being at higher-risk of bacterial contamination, it is ones right to submit to said risk.

Thats fine. You are OK with kids dying cos Mommy wasn't careful enough to buy eggs that are free of salmonella infection. The really important issue for you is the human right of the food seller is not interfered with.

Nice. I like it when people make their position clear.

Your arguments consist of ad hominems. You have disproved none of my points. Your argument -- at the absolute least -- is irrelevant and has no intelligible link.

In my scenario, Mommy would of bought from a surviving and sustaining grocery store that inspects its eggs beforehand. The kid would happily be eating quality eggs that consumers desire.

What you advocate, Hawker, is a monopoly on the regulation of food by a government. All we advocate is a decentralized system and allow food regulation to occur voluntarily through various methods on a consumer and merchant level. You have yet to provide a point against the proposition that businesses would use means to insure its food is of greater and safer quality against its competitors. You have yet to disprove that consumer desire would lead to the enaction of private food regulators much like Consumer Reports and other reviews agencies.

None of us have been against regulation and admonishment of food. Again, we prefer many competing organizations that have incentive to be the BEST service. Not just one that exists on a honor system of that it will prosper just because.

Immanuel Go - what you are saying is that we both want the same thing. My question is this; do you believe society should have the power to intervene BEFORE bad food is sold or do we have to wait until AFTER the sale and have the victim's estate able to sue the food seller?

I believe people should be able to buy whatever food they desire no matter the level of the supply-chain it is inspected. The fact is general consumer desire will dictate that stores have safe food and that it will be inspected beforehand by voluntary consent.

In other cases, I don't believe people should be "protected" from their own decisions. For instance, if one chooses to drink raw milk while being at higher-risk of bacterial contamination, it is ones right to submit to said risk.

Thats fine. You are OK with kids dying cos Mommy wasn't careful enough to buy eggs that are free of salmonella infection. The really important issue for you is the human right of the food seller is not interfered with.

Nice. I like it when people make their position clear.

Your arguments consist of ad hominems. You have disproved none of my points. Your argument -- at the absolute least -- is irrelevant and has no intelligible link.

In my scenario, Mommy would of bought from a surviving and sustaining grocery store that inspects its eggs beforehand. The kid would happily be eating quality eggs that consumers desire.

We can both make up factual circumstances to suit our prejudices. The point is that there is a fundamental difference between our outlook on preserving life. I believe we are entitled to intervene BEFORE the bad food is sold. You don't. No matter how you look at it, your ideas require society to sit on its thumbs until AFTER the poisoning takes place.

What you advocate, Hawker, is a monopoly on the regulation of food by a government. All we advocate is a decentralized system and allow food regulation to occur voluntarily through various methods on a consumer and merchant level. You have yet to provide a point against the proposition that businesses would use means to insure its food is of greater and safer quality against its competitors. You have yet to disprove that consumer desire would lead to the enaction of private food regulators much like Consumer Reports and other reviews agencies.

None of us have been against regulation and admonishment of food. Again, we prefer many competing organizations that have incentive to be the BEST service. Not just one that exists on a honor system of that it will prosper just because.

Immanuel Go - what you are saying is that we both want the same thing. My question is this; do you believe society should have the power to intervene BEFORE bad food is sold or do we have to wait until AFTER the sale and have the victim's estate able to sue the food seller?

I believe people should be able to buy whatever food they desire no matter the level of the supply-chain it is inspected. The fact is general consumer desire will dictate that stores have safe food and that it will be inspected beforehand by voluntary consent.

In other cases, I don't believe people should be "protected" from their own decisions. For instance, if one chooses to drink raw milk while being at higher-risk of bacterial contamination, it is ones right to submit to said risk.

Thats fine. You are OK with kids dying cos Mommy wasn't careful enough to buy eggs that are free of salmonella infection. The really important issue for you is the human right of the food seller is not interfered with.

Nice. I like it when people make their position clear.

Your arguments consist of ad hominems. You have disproved none of my points. Your argument -- at the absolute least -- is irrelevant and has no intelligible link.

In my scenario, Mommy would of bought from a surviving and sustaining grocery store that inspects its eggs beforehand. The kid would happily be eating quality eggs that consumers desire.

We can both make up factual circumstances to suit our prejudices. The point is that there is a fundamental difference between our outlook on preserving life. I believe we are entitled to intervene BEFORE the bad food is sold. You don't. No matter how you look at it, your ideas require society to sit on its thumbs until AFTER the poisoning takes place.

No, it doesn't. It allows society to discontinue business from the source of the poisoning. It allows failure to occur and let a sustainable competitor rise.

What you advocate, Hawker, is a monopoly on the regulation of food by a government. All we advocate is a decentralized system and allow food regulation to occur voluntarily through various methods on a consumer and merchant level. You have yet to provide a point against the proposition that businesses would use means to insure its food is of greater and safer quality against its competitors. You have yet to disprove that consumer desire would lead to the enaction of private food regulators much like Consumer Reports and other reviews agencies.

None of us have been against regulation and admonishment of food. Again, we prefer many competing organizations that have incentive to be the BEST service. Not just one that exists on a honor system of that it will prosper just because.

Immanuel Go - what you are saying is that we both want the same thing. My question is this; do you believe society should have the power to intervene BEFORE bad food is sold or do we have to wait until AFTER the sale and have the victim's estate able to sue the food seller?

I believe people should be able to buy whatever food they desire no matter the level of the supply-chain it is inspected. The fact is general consumer desire will dictate that stores have safe food and that it will be inspected beforehand by voluntary consent.

In other cases, I don't believe people should be "protected" from their own decisions. For instance, if one chooses to drink raw milk while being at higher-risk of bacterial contamination, it is ones right to submit to said risk.

Thats fine. You are OK with kids dying cos Mommy wasn't careful enough to buy eggs that are free of salmonella infection. The really important issue for you is the human right of the food seller is not interfered with.

Nice. I like it when people make their position clear.

Your arguments consist of ad hominems. You have disproved none of my points. Your argument -- at the absolute least -- is irrelevant and has no intelligible link.

In my scenario, Mommy would of bought from a surviving and sustaining grocery store that inspects its eggs beforehand. The kid would happily be eating quality eggs that consumers desire.

We can both make up factual circumstances to suit our prejudices. The point is that there is a fundamental difference between our outlook on preserving life. I believe we are entitled to intervene BEFORE the bad food is sold. You don't. No matter how you look at it, your ideas require society to sit on its thumbs until AFTER the poisoning takes place.

No, it doesn't. It allows society to discontinue business from the source of the poisoning. It allows failure to occur and let a sustainable competitor rise.

What you advocate, Hawker, is a monopoly on the regulation of food by a government. All we advocate is a decentralized system and allow food regulation to occur voluntarily through various methods on a consumer and merchant level. You have yet to provide a point against the proposition that businesses would use means to insure its food is of greater and safer quality against its competitors. You have yet to disprove that consumer desire would lead to the enaction of private food regulators much like Consumer Reports and other reviews agencies.

None of us have been against regulation and admonishment of food. Again, we prefer many competing organizations that have incentive to be the BEST service. Not just one that exists on a honor system of that it will prosper just because.

Immanuel Go - what you are saying is that we both want the same thing. My question is this; do you believe society should have the power to intervene BEFORE bad food is sold or do we have to wait until AFTER the sale and have the victim's estate able to sue the food seller?

I believe people should be able to buy whatever food they desire no matter the level of the supply-chain it is inspected. The fact is general consumer desire will dictate that stores have safe food and that it will be inspected beforehand by voluntary consent.

In other cases, I don't believe people should be "protected" from their own decisions. For instance, if one chooses to drink raw milk while being at higher-risk of bacterial contamination, it is ones right to submit to said risk.

Thats fine. You are OK with kids dying cos Mommy wasn't careful enough to buy eggs that are free of salmonella infection. The really important issue for you is the human right of the food seller is not interfered with.

Nice. I like it when people make their position clear.

Your arguments consist of ad hominems. You have disproved none of my points. Your argument -- at the absolute least -- is irrelevant and has no intelligible link.

In my scenario, Mommy would of bought from a surviving and sustaining grocery store that inspects its eggs beforehand. The kid would happily be eating quality eggs that consumers desire.

We can both make up factual circumstances to suit our prejudices. The point is that there is a fundamental difference between our outlook on preserving life. I believe we are entitled to intervene BEFORE the bad food is sold. You don't. No matter how you look at it, your ideas require society to sit on its thumbs until AFTER the poisoning takes place.

No, it doesn't. It allows society to discontinue business from the source of the poisoning. It allows failure to occur and let a sustainable competitor rise.

But you allow the poisoning to take place first. Agreed?

Poisoning still occurs with a FDA-protected food supply. Poisonings will occur in any case. I believe my method will eventually reach an end where less poisoning will occur due to constant incentive for improvement through competition.

...snip...Poisoning still occurs with a FDA-protected food supply. Poisonings will occur in any case. I believe my method will eventually reach an end where less poisoning will occur due to constant incentive for improvement through competition.

Of course you do. And if you proved it saved more lives, I would agree to abolish food regulation in a snap.

If I proved food regulation saved more lives, would you accept the need for it?

...snip...Poisoning still occurs with a FDA-protected food supply. Poisonings will occur in any case. I believe my method will eventually reach an end where less poisoning will occur due to constant incentive for improvement through competition.

Of course you do. And if you proved it saved more lives, I would agree to abolish food regulation in a snap.

If I proved food regulation saved more lives, would you accept the need for it?

I would; however, so far food regulation has yet to reach a satisfactory result in light of several outbreaks in the past decade or so. Severe fallibility has only been shown thus far.

I believe a gradual reduction of the FDA monopoly in favor of competing agencies (at the least on a state-level) would be worth a try.

...snip...Poisoning still occurs with a FDA-protected food supply. Poisonings will occur in any case. I believe my method will eventually reach an end where less poisoning will occur due to constant incentive for improvement through competition.

Of course you do. And if you proved it saved more lives, I would agree to abolish food regulation in a snap.

If I proved food regulation saved more lives, would you accept the need for it?

I would; however, so far food regulation has yet to reach a satisfactory result in light of several outbreaks in the past decade or so. Severe fallibility has only been shown thus far.

I believe a gradual reduction of the FDA monopoly in favor of competing agencies (at the least on a state-level) would be worth a try.

Wow!

You are the only libertarian here who would accept that. Everyone else I've asked has said that if forced to choose, they will choose freedom to sell bad food over saving the lives of consumers.

Neither of us can really prove our case without a rather dull statistical debate and even then we might not agree. But its interesting that at a high level, you do accept that society has a right to intervene to save lives if there is no better alternative.

The FDA is a non elected council and they are not accountable to voters because they are appointed not elected. It's appeal to belief that the FDA would keep people safer simply because they are appointed to do so rather than business which is directly accountable to the consumer. Why should a governmental body or a business be trusted if there is no process that exists to hold either accountable? There are two reasonable alternatives to this and both are fine; a democratically elected FDA of some form or a free market accountable to consumers. The current food regulation system is not democratic and many of the FDA's practices are questionable enough to garner criticism most of which has not been addressed. The best system is a system which maximizes accountability and the method for that can be argued.

Also why can't a libertarian society form a people's collective, market collective and have the state serve as a treasurer of the collective? As long as people are not deprived of their property by force then it is perfectly fine. A libertarian society can have communism, socialism, and capitalism simultaneously because people, in a free society, can live their life as they choose and that is the single most important thing.